get-mail-attachment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and flexibility. The description adds context about attachment types and the scope of what can be read (properties, relationships, raw contents), which is useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, auth needs, or response format details that would enhance transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences that efficiently state the purpose and attachment types. It's front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary details. However, the second sentence is slightly redundant ('All these types...') and could be tighter, but overall it's appropriately sized with minimal waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but has gaps. It lacks output schema, so return values aren't explained, and it doesn't address usage context or error handling. For a read tool with rich annotations, it's minimally complete but could better integrate with the structured data.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 7 parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the general scope of reading attachments. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema carries the full burden, but the description doesn't compensate with additional semantic context (e.g., how 'select' interacts with attachment types).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Read') and resource ('properties, relationships, or raw contents of an attachment') with specific context ('attached to a user event, message, or group post'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-mail-attachments' (which lists) and 'add-mail-attachment'/'delete-mail-attachment' (which modify), but doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions attachment types but doesn't clarify when to choose this over 'list-mail-attachments' for discovery or other get-* tools for different resources. There's implied context (reading specific attachments), but no when/when-not statements or named alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.